Exceptional Hardship
Exceptional Hardship in Scotland : the Key Points
What It Is – A legal argument used to avoid a driving ban when you reach 12 or more penalty points.
When It’s Used – Applied during “totting-up” cases to argue against disqualification.
Grounds – Can include job loss, severe financial impact, or harm to dependants.
Evidence Required – Detailed, credible evidence is essential to support the claim.
Legal Help – Skilled legal representation significantly increases the chance of success.
Contact us today
94%
success rate
VERIFIED
We are a dedicated, specialist Road Traffic Law firm with a verified 94% success rate.
Exceptional Hardship Proofs | Totting Up Driving Bans
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO RECEIVE OUR 30 PAGE E-BOOK ON EXCEPTIONAL HARDSHIP THEN PLEASE COMPLETE THE CONTACT FORM WITH “EHP E-BOOK OFFER” .
Your Complete guide to Exceptional Hardship
Do you want to know more about this subject? Our comprehensive collection of articles and guides break down everything you need to know, including the most recent legal news and developments
When Will A Court Not Disqualify?
Exceptional hardship is only relevant when you are disqualified under the ”totting up” provisions. If you accumulate 12 or more points on your licence within a period of three years, then you will automatically be disqualified from driving for a period of six months (or longer if you have been disqualified before). Information on ‘totting up’ driving bans can be viewed here.
However, it is possible to reduce the length of disqualification or even remove it altogether if there are mitigating circumstances. Simply saying to the court that the disqualification will cause hardship is not enough. It is thought that disqualification would normally cause hardship, and is part of the penalty. Only if you can show that the hardship is exceptional will the court consider that the penalty should be reduced. The courts interpret this strictly exceptional hardship must be something out of the ordinary.
What could amount to exceptional hardship in any given case depends on the circumstances. If you can show that the disqualification would also cause hardship to others ”for example family members, work colleagues or employees, or others who rely on you, such as ill or infirm relatives” then this will certainly be in your favour. In one case, a self-employed painter and decorator argued that a disqualification would result in his business failing (resulting in hardship to him and his family) and his three employees losing their jobs (which would cause hardship for their families). The painter was the only person in the business who held a licence, and he required to drive a van to transport his employees and equipment. This was held to be exceptional hardship.
Alternatively, if the disqualification would cause you extreme personal hardship, then the courts may consider that exceptional hardship has been established. In one case, a driver argued that if he was disqualified, he would lose his job, be unable to pay his mortgage and would lose his house, would be unable to pay a loan from his employers, and would probably result in the break-up of his marriage. The court considered that in the circumstances this was exceptional hardship. In another case, a full-time taxi driver in his forties successfully argued that if he was disqualified, he would lose his taxi licence which would take him up to ten years to regain. The court found that this amounted to exceptional hardship.
Other Important Cases in which Exceptional Hardship was established
Mugaraneza v PF Glasgow (11 December 2008)
Driver’s business would come to an end and his three employees (including his wife) would lose their employment if he was disqualified. The court noted the importance to the driver’s family of his income and that of his wife, and the current economic climate.
Colgan v McDonald (1999)
Single mother with one son who had cerebral palsy and another who had behavioural difficulties which necessitated psychiatric treatment. Required to drive her sons to school and hospital, and generally transport them.
Findlay v Walkingshaw (1998)
Driver was a livestock driver who also had very specific skills, experience and duties who would be difficult to replace. Disqualification would have a significant impact on the driver’s employer.
Howdle v Davidson (1994)
Wife had a franchise of a car garage, which was effectively run by her husband, the driver. Strong possibility that driver would lose his job and his wife would lose the franchise, leaving the driver, his wife and their children without income. The security of the company would also be jeopardised, and so too would the employment of other staff.
What to do next
Contact us today to start building your strongest defence. With a verified 94% success rate in court, we have the expertise to secure the best possible outcome. Protect your future—call now for a free consultation.
Why instruct us for your case?
Our specialist service:
We are road traffic law experts: it is what we do every day….
nothing else!
Our success rate: Our success rate is 94%.
Our Client Feedback:
Probably the most important guide for anyone.
5/5 rating on Trustpilot, Google Reviews, and Review Solicitors
Our fixed fee service
Nationwide representation in courts across Scotland
Charged with a Motoring Offence?
If you have been charged with ANY motoring offence in Scotland then call Roadtrafficlaw.com: the Road Traffic Law Experts. We would be happy to arrange a meeting with Steven Farmer to discuss your options at a no obligation consultation.
